Walking away from Leveson is not acceptable

The press's alternative royal charter is a brazen attempt by powerful newspaper proprietors to remain unaccountable

'Newspapers have a crucial role to play in ­guarding our freedoms, and ­responsible ­journalism has nothing to fear from the Leveson plan.' Photograph: Graeme Robertson Graeme Robertson/Graeme Robertson

Newspaper editors and proprietors tend to behave as if they are a law unto themselves at the best of times. So the news that some of the papers that serially libelled the McCanns, myself and countless others have rejected the wishes of parliament and devised their own royal charter is hardly a surprise. What is more alarming is the extent of the deceit that these supposed "fearless upholders of the truth" wish to visit on the general public.

It might sound reasonable enough at first glance. They, the editors and proprietors, claim to be safeguarding historic freedoms and protecting the press from Zimbabwean-style political interference. Put that way, who could possibly object? Behind the bluster, though, lurks a plot to embed political control and collusion between ministers and editors in a new system, helping to perpetuate the very abuses and corruption that made the Leveson inquiry necessary. It reduces the public's right to respond to lies printed about them. It is a plan built on a lie.

The newspapers responsible (which do not include the Guardian, the Independent or the Financial Times) claim their charter protects an independent press when, on closer inspection, it does anything but. Party political peers would be allowed to continue to run the regulator, just as they ran the ineffective PCC. The papers argue that it will help the public to get rapid redress, when in fact it removes a crucial element of Leveson – the arbitration service – which gives victims affordable access to justice if they think they have been wronged. Under the press plan, the arbitrator becomes an optional extra. The plan also gives the press new powers over the supposedly independent body charged with checking the regulator is doing a good job on behalf of the public.

In the end, the version of the charter that these newspapers are prepared to accept allows editors and proprietors to decide which complaints they wish to take seriously, and which they would rather ignore.

There is also a fundamental matter of principle at stake. As far as I am concerned – and, I imagine, others who have been victims of the press – it is entirely unacceptable that newspapers should be able to dictate the terms on which any regulatory framework is agreed. The agreement that was arrived at embodied the recommendations of a public inquiry and had all-party support in parliament. It also reflected the will of the electorate and the views of victims of the press. It is simply outrageous that those who have caused so much distress to ordinary members of the public should feel that they have any right to lay down the terms for the way in which the press is overseen in the future.

The system envisaged by Leveson is no threat to freedom of speech. Rather, it will protect members of the public from the more scurrilous abuses, which in my case resulted in the printing of lies and unfounded allegations. Newspapers have a crucial role to play in guarding our freedoms, and responsible journalism has nothing to fear from the Leveson plan. What is being recommended is a system of independent self-regulation that is transparent, accountable and workable.

By contrast, the newly proposed charter is a brazen attempt by powerful and unaccountable newspapers to pull the wool over our eyes. In the past, politicians showed themselves to be all too susceptible to pressure from vested interests. Now is the time to show some backbone and put the public interest first. It is down to David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband to make it clear that walking away from Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations in this way and at this stage is simply not acceptable.